Hope is a Tool, Not Just a Feeling, Says Political Psychologist
Political psychologist Dr. Oded Adomi Leshem argues that hope is not merely a passive feeling of optimism but an active mechanism and a tool that can drive political movements, build communities, and shift public opinion. In his new book, "The Hope Revolution," Leshem deconstructs the concept of hope, distinguishing it from optimism, which he describes as an assessment of favorable chances. Hope, conversely, can exist even when odds are poor and requires daily commitment and action, likening it to getting off the couch rather than just sitting on it.
Leshem criticizes the liberal camp for becoming "experts in disaster," focusing excessively on identifying threats and injustices while neglecting the creation of alternatives. He contends that while negative emotions like anger and fear are necessary for social change, they are insufficient on their own and can lead to despair. For sustained activism, he stresses the need for a positive vision of what to strive for, not just what to move away from.
His research, conducted at the International Center for the Study of Hope at the Hebrew University, explores the quantitative aspects of hope, including its "dosages" and how different emotional "ingredients" like fear, anger, and efficacy interact. Leshem's work also examines the concept of "hope for peace" among Israelis and Palestinians, breaking it down into "feasibility" (can it happen?) and "yearning" (do we want it to happen?). He observes a decline in yearning for peace among Israelis, suggesting that the focus on feasibility has overshadowed the desire for it.
Leshem advocates for a more emotionally resonant approach to political discourse, drawing a parallel to the LGBTQ+ community's successful use of pride, festivals, and celebrations to transform their identity. He believes that successful political movements, like the hostage rescue efforts, require both communal spaces for support and direct action to disrupt the status quo. He criticizes the liberal camp for often hesitating to wield power and for a tendency towards purism, suggesting that a political ecosystem needs complementary roles, with some disrupting and others inviting.
Ultimately, Leshem argues that the right has succeeded in narrowing the public's vision of possible futures by defining what is dangerous and what constitutes weakness. He calls for a shift from merely reacting to threats to actively cultivating a vision of a future where life itself is the achievement, emphasizing partnership over weakness and peace as a way of life, not just a prize for believers.
